Department of Labor

Is Forcing Businesses to Pay Overtime to More Workers Really a Brilliant Idea? No Frigging Way.

Evidence suggests that tightening overtime rules could kill jobs

|

woodleywonderworks / Foter / CC BY

After a long wait, the Obama administration seems poised this week to vastly increase the ranks of American workers eligible for time-and-a-half overtime pay. With just a simple rules change—raising from $23,660 to as much as $52,000 the threshold below which workers must be paid overtime—the federal government is poised to raise incomes. Or increase the number of jobs. The rationale varies, depending on who you ask. But it's all good, or so we're told.

Except…It might not be so easy as bureaucrats think to manufacture prosperity by scratching out and replacing numbers in the federal rule books.

Some advocates of boosting the overtime threshold insist it will both raise income and increase the number of jobs. Last year, Jared Bernstein and Ross Eisenbrey argued on behalf of the Economic Policy Institute (in a paper funded by the U.S. Department of Labor) for the extension of overtime requirements to what they estimate will be five to 10 million more American workers, "in the interest of both clarity and meeting the goals of the FLSA to reduce unemployment by spreading work, prevent excessive overtime, and fairly compensate workers who do work overtime."

But even the models Bernstein and Eisenbrey used assumed that employers would ultimately reduce employees' base wages so that employee costs remained the same even while paying time-and-a-half, perhaps after initially spreading the new work to new hires in order to avoid overtime costs. "[I]f OT is designed to provide a compensating wage differential to workers working more hours than what is generally considered as full-time work, then a downward adjustment that partially erases that differential is obviously less beneficial to workers," they concede, before insisting it should be implemented anyway.

Even that initial sharing of work to new hires is uncertain. Writing for the Bonn, Germany-based Institute for the Study of Labor, Ronald L. Oaxaca pointed out last year (PDF) that workers who put in overtime tend to be higher-skilled than those who don't—and certainly they're more skilled than the unemployed. So replacing the efforts of suddenly 50 percent more expensive employees isn't going to be a simple matter of picking up a few day laborers and asking them to make up the difference.

[I]f it had been efficient to eliminate overtime and increase employment before the regulatory change that raised the overtime premium, employers would have already done so. Instead, they had chosen the overtime schedule for their workforce, indicating that this was the least costly alternative. Consequently, the higher overtime premium induces employers to use the more costly alternative of reducing overtime hours and incurring the expense of added employment as the best that they can do under the new overtime regime. One casualty of higher labor costs is employment.

Increasing the cost of workers who put in overtime is likely to limit the availability of extra hours, warns Oaxaca, increasing moonlighting among skilled labor who will then compete directly with the unemployed who are supposed to benefit from overtime rules.

"[I]f there is any effect of overtime regulation, it would be in the direction of lowering employment," he concludes.

The real-world experience of Warren Meyer, president of Recreation Resource Management and proprietor of Coyote Blog, emphasizes those warnings. He points out that employers already have regulation-induced experience with maximizing productivity among employees while reducing hours.

Five years ago, I might have really been in a panic over this in my company, but fortunately our experience with Obamacare has given me confidence we'll figure it out.  With Obamacare we were facing enormous costs which we (like many service and retail companies) managed to eliminate by converting almost all of our full-time employees to part-time.   Compared to that effort, figuring out how to get all of our managers down to 40 hours seems like child's play.

Meyer points out an outcome of the regulations that likely escapes the notice of academic economists and government bureaucrats: the proposed overtime rules change affects not only employment, but the relationship between workers and employers. Ambitious workers intent on proving their value by taking on extra responsibilities will be severely hobbled in their ability to do so, and instead be reduced to time-clock punchers.

It's almost as if government regulations are not just incapable of magically making the world a better place, but are completely counter-productive. Who could have predicted that?

Advertisement

NEXT: UMW President Says Feminist Group's Title IX Complaint Is Reckless, Misinformed

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. . . . commenting peanut gallery.

    Wait, did Ken White just out himself as PB?

    http://popehat.com/2015/06/08/…..nt-1315682

    1. Like I said elsewhere, Ken White is far too smart to be PB/Tulpa/Bo. Then again, so is Ralph Wiggum. And the guy in Flowers for Algrenon, after his re-dumbening.

      1. “Stupid science bitch, couldn’t even make I more smarter!”

    1. (That should have been a big blockquote.)

    2. It looks like the lucky commenters are:

      Agammamon
      Alan
      croaker
      Cloudbuster
      Rhywun
      Product Placement

      1. I didn’t get them sued! I didn’t get them sued! This time! This time This time! This time!

        Sing along, everybody! I didn’t get them sued!…

        1. Look, just because we know that you’re a walking crime against humanity doesn’t mean the government knows it yet.

        2. I would be curious to know how this came to the attention of the DoJ ?

          Anyone ?

          Buller ? Buller ?

          BULLER !

          1. Gillespie says don’t discuss this: http://popehat.com/2015/06/08/…..eason-com/

            And you are violating orders. What kind of libertarian are you?

      2. WTF? I just got censored!! So my comment above makes no sense. Those interested as to why should just visit Instapundit and look for the item that mentions Reason.com.

        1. You look like a crazy person.

          1. Just follow my instructions above. This is the biggest H&R commenter brouhaha since Mary Stack. Trust me.

            1. Oh shit! Did Bo get a job with the DOJ?

              1. See, somebody needs to track Bo down and try and make him defend Aggie and the others. That’ll be fun to watch.

        2. I have a bad feeling that due to gag orders/advice of counsel, they’re going to be (necessarily) restricting comment on this for a while.

          1. Yep. We should probably pretend like none of this is happening.

            *swings arms and claps hands out in front of me, repeatedly*

            So… anyone got any Cleveland Browns jokes?

            1. You know who else pretended something wasn’t happening?

              1. Touche !

                1. It’s always the French, isn’t it?

            2. Norman Bates?

              1. They want to change their name to the Cleveland Steamers.

                1. Somebody really hates these cans.

        3. Do Alissi a favor and don’t talk about it too much. They have enough headaches without having to nuke our comments to cover their asses legally.

        4. Like, this is orders of magnitude worse than when that stupid aviation lawyer asshole did his frivolous lawsuit. This is the DOJ looking for an excuse to fuck the Reason foundation.

          1. Except, that if this bullshit isn’t nipped in the bud, it will grow worse.

            I know how government scum lawyers think; they will push until someone smacks them across the nose hard with a rolled up newspaper.

            If one acts guilty, or fearful, it merely emboldens them.

            1. You’re not wrong. But I don’t begrudge anyone for anything they do to keep their neck off the block.

              1. Yeah, and how exactly would the 22 Hit & run regulars stop the juggernaut that is the Department of Justice?

                Everyone always says “this isn’t a hill we should die on”.

                Is this finally the hill we’re supposed to die on? Because I’m getting tired of climbing hills, only to be told that it isn’t the one.

                1. It’s more a hill that the Kochs and co. with plenty of disposable scratch would die on.

                  This is their message board. If anyone has an interest in protecting satirical, anti-statist speech against hamfisted attempts at censorship, it’s them.

                2. Is this finally the hill we’re supposed to die on? Because I’m getting tired of climbing hills, only to be told that it isn’t the one.

                  Way they work is by making examples. Examples exist to teach.

                  Of the 22, they pick off 2. Not everyone dies, you want witnesses to go home and tell the stories – so people learn to stay off hills at all.

                  1. Of the 22, they pick off 2. Not everyone dies, you want witnesses to go home and tell the stories – so people learn to stay off hills at all.

                    So they decimate us?

                3. Paul.|6.8.15 @ 6:46PM|#
                  “Is this finally the hill we’re supposed to die on? Because I’m getting tired of climbing hills, only to be told that it isn’t the one.”

                  Right now, there are certain people who are on that hill by no choice of their own.
                  I’m of the opinion that my first concern is the welfare of those folks, so I’m hoping someone can or will give the commentariat some hints about what would be helpful at this point.
                  IOWs, I don’t think it’s the role’ of the commentariat to take up the struggle until we know how that might help.

                4. Wait, there’s 22 of us?

                  I thought the number was much lower considering we’re all supposed to be sockpuppets of Episiarch.

                  1. I am not a sock puppet of Episiarch. He is my God though. Does that count?

                5. I agree with paul. What the fuck can anyone on this board do to stop what’s going on.

            2. they will push until someone smacks them across the nose hard with a rolled up newspaper.

              Such inflammatory rederick can get you in trouble, tarran.

              1. Of someone documented his comments would that person have made chronicles of rederick?

        5. DOJ is targeting Reason.com, a leading libertarian website whose clever writing is eclipsed only by the blowhard stupidity of its commenting peanut gallery.

          God love ya, Ken!

          1. Seeing the severity and general evil nature of the situation, Ken can eat my dick for piling on. Whoever this guy is.

            1. He’s not “piling on.” He’s clearly explaining why the DOJ has no case while accurately describing a good number of regular Reason commentators.

              Also, he’s a highly regarded lawyer who regularly helps people who are threatened by powerful organizations for expressing their opinions.

              He’s a good guy.

          2. The Dark Chicago guy actually thinks libertarians are the reason Obama got elected.

            No seriously.

        6. But I don’t wanna visit instapundit.

          Just tell us what happened .

        7. Popehat has an article up about it too.

        8. “They are specifically at Reason.com, a site with excellent content but cursed with a group of commenters who think such trash talk is amusing.”

          Postrel approves.

          Also, the slimy little cocksuckers at the DOJ should really go fuck themselves with a chainsaw right now.

          1. Rusty and running! Goddammit, this is such disingenuous bullshit on the DOJ’s part it’s hard to know where to start arguing against it.

          2. I just explained this to my wife.

            She said I should not come here and comment when I have been drinking.

            Probably sound advice. I am itching to beat the snot out of some pussy at the DOJ.

            Anyone here that is given grief by them don’t be shy to ask for help. I will not hesitate to lend a hand paying for legal help.

            I have been very vocal in the past about refusing to cowtow to anyone on my first amendment rights and I stick by that. I am willing to put my money where my mouth is.

            1. Yeah, my wife’s first question: “You don’t post comments like that, do you?”

              I don’t think I do. But I’m not the one making that decision. That’s the scariest part.

              1. I can’t remember if I have in the past and that scares me.

              2. Know what the irony here is?

                The fricken DOJ, if they’re so inclined, messes up more innocent lives than any lousy commenter here ever could with some lousy misguided words.

                The irony and the evil combined is truly disturbing.

              3. I’m pretty sure most everyone here has at least speculated about this or that person’s prospects in regard to post-corporeal residency, which seems sufficient.

                I guess if you want a positive take, it seems like, against all odds, we’re not all already on The List.

            2. I’m getting pretty angry myself.

          3. I don’t think any of those comments are supposed to be amusing. They’re letting off steam after a tragedy of justice. Doi.

      3. OK, well – cat’s out of the bag. Now you know – if you hadn’t figured it out already – what my legal trouble is about.

        1. You should not have apologized.

        2. Best of luck. Let us know how we can help.

          1. Yeah. I took my credit card out.

          2. Count me in on that.

        3. For your edification, a re-enactors’s battle song:
          Chorus:
          Somebody’s first to die boys,
          Somebody’s first to die!
          We’re all together on the field,
          But somebody’s first to die!

          Verses:
          The army’s march together!
          Hark! Hear the battle’s din!
          All our men are brave and bold!
          We know that we will win! But…

          The archers start the battle.
          They’re deadly from afar.
          The pikes and shieldwall close up tight,
          For now we march to war! But…

          The pikemen stand together,
          And face against the foe.
          The swordsmen, they march forward,
          To the shieldwall they will go. But…

          There’s archers and there’s greatswords
          Soldiers and Chivalry!
          With sword and pike and the King’s good word
          We’ll see our foemen flee! But…

          The King and the army’s high command,
          They all survey the field.
          The valient foe’s unbroken yet;
          One charge before they yield! But…

          And when we stand victorious,
          ‘Mid bodies piled high,
          We’ll all search out our gallant friends
          And grieve for those who’ve died. But..

          1. Okay. You go first.

            1. This is one of my favorite songs because in many years of re-enacting large scale (1000+ fighters) battles, I am very frequently the first to die, and singing a rousing song while doing it makes you feel better. However, dying first is a job hazard of being an archer: small, lightly armored and universally hated by stick jocks who think distance fighters are ‘cheating’. As a rule archers don’t charge in first, but they are the ones killed first by those that do.

        4. I figured you just kidnapped someone for ransom.

        5. I’m horrified. Let us know how we can help.

      4. What the fuck happened?

        1. Deja vu… a glitch in the matrix. It means that someone changed something…

      5. I hope there is a special place in hell reserved for the horrible pricks at the DOJ that are trying to bring these lawsuits. If not, perhaps I can acquire a nice wood chipper. If wood chippers are unavailable, my gut tells me they’ll be first against the wall when the revolution comes.

        Try me, dicks. I’m a lawyer and boy would I love to have a successful First Amendment case on my resume.

        1. ” I’m a lawyer and boy would I love to have a successful First Amendment case on my resume.”

          Then by all means you should volunteer you services pro bono to help those named above.

          Don’t wait for it to happen to you.

          Go out and seek what you claim to be against and help your fellow Reasonettes..

          1. This…

        2. I think that they’re pretty common around Fargo.

      6. this thread is showing up on an article about working overtime.

        What exactly is happening? Is someone getting sued?

        1. Go to Popehat.

      7. Which article at popehat.com are we supposed to refrain from commenting on? Besides that, your article was only one (vague) sentence and there was no link or comment section. Should I try my decoder ring?

  2. “It’s almost as if government regulations are not just incapable of magically making the world a better place, but are completely counter-productive. Who could have predicted that?”
    Anyone in possession of a moiety of his marbles, who can remember as far back as, say, last year.

    So that lets out most Democrats and a significant proportions of Republicans and independents.

    Drat.

  3. Any time a third party sticks its nose in a free exchange between two parties, at least one of those parties loses.

  4. A little note to Reason magazine.

    If you truly believe in freedom of speech, this is the time to grow a sack. Because if you submit today, they’ll make you submit tomorrow, and the day after, and the day after that.

    Once you submit to the Dane, you are never going to be rid of him.

    1. What, the danegeld doesn’t magically make them go away? And that mobster will be back next month for more protection money?

      Unpossible!

    2. This isn’t submitting to the Dane, this is hoping that the Czar sees fit not to ship your whole family to Siberia. We’re well past the fighting Viking raiders stage.

    3. Yeah, seriously. I understand that the Reason foundation has a lot to lose, but, well, here we are.

      Given that Agammamon was already contacted IRL, it sounds like Reason may have disclosed some identifiable information. Unless it was got through other means.

      I’m hoping it was the latter. And if it was the former, I really hope Reason fought the request as much as possible.

    4. Your note doesn’t just apply to Reason magazine.

      This applies to everyone. We are dealing with an administration who openly says they want to change the way the news is reported. A thin-skinned bunch of banana republic style cheap thugs who want to stamp their boots all over the first amendment.

      They come for Reason commenters today, tomorrow they come for everyone else. If you are not for them it is just a matter of time before you are in their sights.

      1. Exactly, suthenboy , these assholes are fascists.

    5. I’m offensive and found your comment Danish.

      1. I hate donuts with no hole.

    6. This is a real eye opener as to where freedom of hyperbole stands in the US.

  5. Some advocates of boosting the overtime threshold insist it will both raise income and increase the number of jobs.

    The idea being that if you make overtime too expensive, it will make more financial sense to increase staff numbers than to use existing staff working greater hours? (Now to read the argument to see if I’m close.)

    1. FoE, could you stay on topic here? We have a legal matter to discuss.

      1. I should have prefaced it with OT.

    2. Admitting the intent to “spread” work is particularly chilling.

      1. Plus, more workers means your business might grow big enough to be “eligible” for Obamacare, no?

    3. isn’t this similar to the “living wage” example? When had increasing the cost of something also increased demand for it?

      1. “When had increasing the cost of something also increased demand for it?”

        When it’s a tax on smokes? Oh, wait….

  6. So, on topic – Coyote Blog covered this also.

    http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyo…..chers.html

    And he finds this lovely quote

    As a final note, I have to give the Coyote Academic Arrogance Award to Daniel Hamermesh of UT Austin who is quoted as follows:

    “It’s hard to believe that somebody making $30,000 is a supervisor,”

    Its hard to believe how out of touch the people who want to run the country are with conditions on the ground.

  7. “Double your income with this one weird trick!”

  8. France adopted a 35 hour work week on the belief that cutting hours of each worker would cause businesses to hire more workers.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/35-hour_workweek

    Perhaps next they will investigate whether 3 women can have 1 baby in 3 months vs 1 woman having 1 baby in 9 months. What? The math works out if you assume a uniform rate. Soon France will lead the world in population growth!

    1. Great analogy, Derp. In my experience with the many “joe” jobs I have held as girl and woman, the Manager/Assistant Managers are the only hard workers in the joint (excluding the Managers who are managers because their relative is the owner–those guys are seriously fucked up). When Friday rolls around, and half the shift crew is no-call/no-show, it’s the salaried assistant manager who doesn’t have profit destroying overtime costs that keeps the show running.

      1. fast food assistant manager – quite possibly the worst job ever AND best learning experience ever.

        1. Exactly. Every time I’ve gotten a joe job, I end up being offered an assistant manger position within a couple of months. It’s terrifyingly easy: work hard, do things that need doing without having to be told, and show up on time every time.

          1. So…be a responsible person and a good worker?

            Well, I’m out.

            1. They also like to only hire humans…

              1. Hey, I’m human! Mostly! More than Warty, at least!

        2. Selling vacuum cleaners door to door. It was the best of times, and the worst of times.

        3. I love it…I hate it…

          Yep!

    2. Derpetologist|6.8.15 @ 6:49PM|#
      “France adopted a 35 hour work week on the belief that cutting hours of each worker would cause businesses to hire more workers.”

      And I’m convinced the French are stupid enough to actually believed that happy horse-shit.

      1. Bastiat was French, and the 35-hour ‘logic’ depicted sounds like one of his jokes. Amazing such a politically stupid society randomly cranks out a gem like that dude.

        1. Imagine how frustrating it must have been to be a libertarian in 19th century France. I’m amazed he didn’t go crazy or commit suicide. I suppose it’s being an individualist in North Korea.

      2. What? The math works out. Let x be the number of workers at 40 hours/week and y be the number at 35 hours/week. So 35y = 40x. Therefore, the number of new workers at 35 hours per week will be y = 40/35x or 1.14 times the number of initial workers. See? It all works out.

        (Yes, I have actually seen this calculation worked out by people claiming to be economists.)

        Vive la France!

        1. Example: Here the geniuses at the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers say unemployment can be reduced by cutting hours and giving more vacations/

          And according to the Math Wizards at PBS:

          How would this help the economy? The tax break would allow the employer to compensate workers for fewer hours up to some limit, say a maximum of $2,500 per worker. That would cut work hours but maintain staffing levels.

          As a result, workers would be getting just as much money as before the reduction in hours ? but putting in 10% fewer hours. If workers have the same amount of money, then demand in the economy will be the same. At the same time, firms would then need to hire more workers to meet this demand, since they would be getting 10% fewer hours from each worker.

          http://www.pbs.org/newshour/ma…..-workweek/

        2. And of course, best case scenario is that now *each* of the original ‘1’ are made 13% poorer to create openings for the ‘.14’.

          1. Shh! You’re not supposed to notice that part!

  9. As usual, it’s hard to tell whether this is a bunch of economic illiterates who are taking us a step closer to utopia or gutter cynics who are using the disemployment effect to further class warfare and further the Democrats’ political goal. Probably some combination of the two given the sorts who wind up in Washington.

  10. Hey guys, you should go out to the main H&R page and look at the top article that just got put up.

    1. They disabled comments on it. They know us too well.

      1. That could…no that would have gotten out of hand quickly.

        As it ought to.

    2. And it’s bullshit! We can’t comment on the ‘don’t comment’ article!

      1. Tow the fucking lion!

    3. I’ll respect the request, but I hope Reason gives them hell.

    4. Won’t stay at the top forever.

      Here:
      https://reason.com/blog/2015/06…..commenters

      1. It would have been hi-larious if it ended with ‘Share us your thoughts.’

    5. Oops, sorry, Nick!

    6. Good thing Reason doesn’t know about stenography. All my comments are secretly about the thing we aren’t supposed to be commenting about.

    7. I am going to give them the benefit of doubt, for now. They are under threat.

      As for those threatening them, take your gag order and stick it up your ass.

  11. Compared to that effort, figuring out how to get all of our managers down to 40 hours seems like child’s play.

    A shining example of a Kulak and Counter-revolutionary wrecker, right there.

    1. He makes his living running a private firm that manages public lands and is frequently juggling his books to keep step with the newest federal intervention.

      At some point, Warren really needs to work out a way to seek some serious rent.

  12. Is Nick being an amazing pussy about the thing I cant talk about?

    Or is that just my interpretation?

    1. Maybe it is just me but the pm links comments just disappeared. This is not worrisome at all. Nope.

      1. Oh, I guess not. I was wrong, they are still there.

        1. No, they were gone for me for a few refreshes, too. They might have hidden them briefly to do some cleaning.

      2. I saw that. They’re back now but some comments are missing (BigT’s and someone who claimed to be a lawyer, at least).

    2. Lawyers in suits ruin everything.

      I’d quote Shakespeare, but that might land them in even more trouble.

    3. I don’t know what pressure is being brought to bear. I can understand why Reason would be playing it safe right now. But they should fight this tooth and nail. I’ll be paying attention come donation season.

  13. What is the rendezvous site if Reason comments are shut-down?

    /NOT sarcasm

    I’m emailing members of Congress, and potentially sympathetic news outlets/organizations.

    1. Is urkubold or whatever still up?

      1. Grylliade hasnt updated since 2010.

        1. That’s the old one.

          They moved the site.

          The people running that are really good people.

          No need to drag them into this. They don’t need it.

          If someone volunteered, that would be different. Where’s Herr Kobold?

          What about reddit?

          1. Do tell, haven’t seen a good alternative to Reason – backstop would be a better word

          2. A private subreddit might be best as a backstop.

            1. If someone makes one I’d love a link. That would be my first visit to reddit.

              1. Root, Quincy, Andrew, SMJ — email me. thaneofwhiterun@gmx.com

                1. Oh, and Ken.

                2. That thing that you sent me, I got it.

          3. Reddit? Have you seen what’s been happening with them since yesterday?

            Just don’t insult Chairman Pao even in jest. Your new rendezvous subreddit forum will mysteriously disappear.

    2. Epi’s moms basement?

      1. We can certainly all fit in there.

        1. It’s not her basement that you can all fit in.

          1. DON’T TALK ABOUT THE BASEMENT

          2. *walks into secret reason meeting room*

            OMG, why does this place smell like the breeze wafting off of Puget Sound?

    3. The comment thread at Popehat has a number of regulars already there. Thoughts?

      1. Good suggestion, but their comment thread set-up is challenging.

      1. I am so confused by what’s going on over there, but I approve of it.

    4. We will have to come up with our own language too.

      Urgo, gooby gob goo.

    5. I’d gladly lend my site, but I’m pretty sure it would be murdered by the hits.

  14. Let’s all talk about….

    …that guy who fucks goats.

    1. Rumor has it, he was just diagnosed with goat AIDS and he’s only got 6 months to live.

    2. Get it straight, Fluufy, the rumor about the guy who fucks goats

      1. “Get it straight, Fluufy, the rumor about the guy who fucks goats”

        THANK YOU! It’s like he wants Reason to get sued.

    3. Does this have something to do with the legal liability of heavier-than-air aircraft?

      Baaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

  15. Once again the progressive communists claim to be pro-choice but support communist mandates.

  16. I am trying to post this in a way that is allowable (truly sad I have to say that).

    On the twitter feed of a guy who is into breaking news about this website, and in reference to the reason commenter’s “outrage” this was left:

    Reason’s comments: you will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. Well, maybe Youtube.

    I have never been so insulted and depressed. I blame all of you for this fuckery.

    1. I take it that guy has never spent any time on Salon, MSNBC, Slate, HuffPo, et al.

      1. He said youtube! YOUTUBE!

        1. That is a low blow.

    2. “I have never been so insulted and depressed.”

      Hold on, you haven’t read rationalwiki’s article on libertarians yet:

      http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Libertarianism

      1. Youtube.

      2. I’m sure they’re right, they’ve got rational right there in the title.

  17. My bosses approve of that mammal which shall not be named. She is an inspiration to all Reptilian Overlords

    1. Well, your bosses can shove it up their cloacas, then.

  18. Saw Nick’s request to not comment on a particular topic, will we listen? One can only Hope, Pat

    1. See the thing is, libertarians are not particularly good at asking permission and obeying orders…

      1. The DOJ of the United States of America can drown in a pool of poutine gravy while choking on cheese curds.

        You parasitical, useless collection of meddlesome tyrants. Go do some real work and actually contribute something to humanity.

        Other than that, jeez, is this THE libertarian moment?

        1. And that’s all I’m gonna say in this matter.

        2. The sad thing is I feel that the Canadian government could more easily get away with this stunt based on the hate speech bs laws up here.

          1. Yeah. It is true.

            But it’s the USA that has made a living talking about freedom and liberty.

            At this point, it’s all just words. Big, fancy words.

            1. Yup. I have quickly realized in the last 3-4 years that the US is as socialist as any western nation. Liberty and freedom are just words American’s say to themselves to make themselves feel good. They do not represent the nation they live in.

              1. The last 6 years have certainly swung the pendulum in the wrong direction. Some things at the state level are more promising, but anyone who didn’t realize just how hard left Barry was after his first 90 days in office is officially a moron.

    2. Yeah, we should find someplace else.

      I think that’s what they’re trying to do.

      1. It seems like we are all going to Popehat

        1. Nope. Not me man. I’m gonna sink right here.

          1. I’m with you. Fuck that other site – they called us dooty heads!

            I’ve never been so proud.

      2. Go to the cat video to vent. Go the cat video!

  19. Oh man, the federal government just keeps on giving to us wage and hour class action attorneys.

  20. I just realized. If Reason gets squeezed can a moderator be far behind?

    I nominate…ME!

    Two reasons. One, I’m Canadian and ergo above your laws. Two, I got your backs.

    1. Three: Poutine!

    2. Four: Corner Gas/ Butch Patterson: Private Dick/ Degrassi/ Kids In The Hall!

      Five: Gordon Lightfoot (’nuff said)!

      1. Six: RUSH (helloooooooooooo)

        1. Seven: Bob and Doug McKenzie
          Eight: Captain Kirk

      2. I would take Alanis over Lightfoot anyday!

        1. *crosses Crusty off of ‘Possibly Kill Last’ list*

        2. I would take Alanis over Lightfoot anyday!

          HERETIC!

          In that case, taste the sheer power and majesty of Canada’s big-gun, Stompin’ Tom Connors.

          https://youtu.be/HtySGSuKZe8

          1. Also,I will take Red Rider over Rush any day of the week.

            1. Crusty is part of the lunatic fringe I see.

              1. Don’t be coy, you knew they were out there.

            2. I’d trade them all in for Oscar Peterson.

        3. Do you mean, you would take out Alanis over Lightfoot?

          ‘Cause, if so, I can understand that. Otherwise, no.

          1. Gordon Lightfoot could not carry John Denver’s jock.

            1. That’s cause John Denver wore pink panties.

              And Gordon Lightfoot’s a man.

              So…

              1. you will have to explain yourself to a federal court someday.

                “sociopathic troll commenter Almanian once claimed the great John Denver, an American hero, wore pink panties.”

              2. I don’t know why but I got the sudden image of Denver, Lightfoot and Anne Murray in a threesome.

                1. And I will be in my dirty bunk.

            2. Gordon Lightfoot could not carry John Denver’s jock.

              It would seem they got along OK.

              Really, CJ, you didn’t get where you are today by crapping on great musicians.

              1. Teeps, if you knew where I was you would understand that is exactly how I got here.

                1. ……..OK, that sounds quite interesting.

                  Plus, no love for Reginald Perrin?

                  1. I had no idea what that was, but I like it.

    3. Nine: Terence and Philip

  21. Glad to see you all listened to Nick Gillespie’s earnest plea for silence and decorum.

    Keep up the good work, team!

    1. Is popehate our only alternative? The threading there is atrocious.

      1. Nope. As I mentioned up thread. They’ll have to pass a law. Looks like this batch of buffoons will break up.

        Like the Brady Bunch.

        1. Need more commenters to get that going.

          1. For some reason, I cannot post to youtube. Maybe it’s my sunny disposition.

        2. What the f is this cat video?!!

            1. Too lazy.

    2. Meh. Bah.

      Out of respect to Reason, I got things off my chest and will cease.

  22. We need a Bluto moment.

    I’m bummed out by all this.

    How the most powerful nation in world history, a nation I admire, could astonishingly pull this has absolutely left me stunned.

    Think of this. The douches charged with protecting this great land are sitting around reading random comments on a publication.

    If this is not a DIRECT ATTACK ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND SPEECH please prescribe to me exactly what is.

    And note to Popehat. I have a Major in History, have a lovely family, own properties and a business, run marathons, have read all the classics, speak three languages and would gladly welcome any debate you care to pimp out. Watch what you say about people you pompous, presumptuous poop because I’m comfortable in the notion of not feeling inferior to you, sir.

    1. Don’t take it personally. Note that Popehat’s forums are moderated. Reason’s aren’t. the only difference between Reason’s and Popehat’s commenters is all the off topic, poopy, meany, trolling shit just has to get deleted by an intern. That’s it. It’s not like Popehat is some magical beacon, drawing from only the best and finest commenters on the internet.

      Consider that Reason and Youtube have about the same amount of comment moderation.

      Exactly. Reason is pretty amazing when you think about it.

      1. Given the high activity, it’s downright civil.

        And superior.

        Hear that, Ken Poop Hat?

        SUPERIOR.

    2. The douches charged with protecting this great land are sitting around reading random comments on a publication.

      It bears repeating, but these are not the actions of a government interested in serving the people. This is what you do to enemies.

      1. Lois Lerner isn’t indicted. That tells you all you need to know.

  23. How long before we each get a letter asking us to refrain making fun of Obama and that we mus call him President The Light Bringer Obama?

    1. The Light Bringer can totally be an insult. It’s all in the delivery.

  24. And the most horrid comment at the website which must not be named is:

    nk June 8, 2015 at 3:59 pm
    Reason’s writers, I mean Balko and ilk not the commenters, are disingenuous frauds. This is what a typical Reason post reads like: “Milwaukee gay rights activist, Jeffrey Dahmer, receives twelve life sentences for cooking in his apartment.” That attracts a lot of weirdos, like flies to ____.

    1. Dude, it’s Kizone Kaprow. It’s not a real person, it’s like the Platonic ideal of a crazy, mentally disturbed stalker.

      I wouldn’t be surprised if Kaprow is the one who theoretically might have been behind certain recent troubles.

      1. Chris June 8, 2015 at 2:42 pm
        I think I read that article before the comment section got so fun. I have been reading Reason almost as long as I have Popehat, though I rarely comment over there since 1) Mobile commenting is either a pain or impossible, 2) a month long coverage of Millenialls has soured the commentors against anyone under 30, and 3) because I often read when I’m avoiding doing work, and I’m not willing to have a 30 page argument every time my opinion isn’t as libertarian as others think it should be.

        Bo?

      2. Ah, crap. I replied to it. Gotta be better at spotting the entirely deranged.

        1. I recall some of Chris’s post during the “what do Millenials think” deluge (don’t have the energy tonight to dig through archives, but I remember he identified himself as someone in his 20’s). I’m pretty sure he is legit.

          To be somewhat fair, there is a tendency for any “new” commenters to be called-out as a troll, Tulpa, slaver, etc.

          1. “To be somewhat fair, there is a tendency for any “new” commenters to be called-out as a troll, Tulpa, slaver, etc.”

            True, but check the last paragraph of the comment at 5:45PM.

        2. HAHAHAHHA

          That person is now claiming they’re not Mary Stack, they’re just some guy.

          That amazes me. How could some random person show up like that and be so obtuse and ridiculous as to be mistaken for Mary Stack? That has to be the dumbest person on Earth.

  25. Well, this is rather dispiriting.

    Whatever happened to the “I do not bite my thumb at you, sir, but I bite my thumb, sir,” defense?

  26. Well we’ve been watching the governments spin out of control for years: county, state, city, and federal. It was only a matter of time before Reason was going to be a target. This is bigger than Mr. Sheepfucker.

    1. Mr. Alleged Sheepfucker.

      Get his name right.

  27. DON’T TALK ABOUT THE WAR!!!

  28. I see a movie in the making in all this.

    I want Daniel Day Lewis to play me.

    1. Don’t you have a law that it has to be a Canadian? I’d cast Neil Young.

      1. He’s too derpy.

        1. Alex Trebek.

          1. What did I ever did to you, for $200?

            1. That’s what I asked Trebeck’s mother last night, Rufus…..

              /SNL Connery

  29. Are quotes from 1984 prosecutable now?

    1. Thoughtcrimes.

    2. In the UK some MP I think it was got charged for quoting Churchill about Muslims. Maybe we’re not that far behind them.

  30. It’s probable that hiking the minimum wage would hurt jobs in our capitalist economy. By asking the lords to be more giving, they may cease to be able to exploit anyone. Instead of raising the minimum wage, we should overthrow the capitalist state and establish an anarcho-syndicalist society, one in which the economic sphere is merged with the rest of democratic society.

    1. Other than the language acquisition device, his advocacy for anarcho-syndicalism was Chomsky’s worst idea .

      1. Reckon that’s a troll?

        1. In the end, they all are.

      2. Why? It’s the appropriate extension of liberty to society. What’s so libertarian about claiming private property you don’t actually have to occupy or use? Only a coercive state structure can make that possible. None of the faux right-wing “libertarians” I’ve argued with can give a satisfactory answer to that.

        1. “None of the faux right-wing “libertarians” I’ve argued with can give a satisfactory answer to that.”

          Yeah, the tide rolls in and the tide rolls out, and you can’t explain THAT, right mr. wise guy?

          1. Considering it’s the basis for your justification of corporate plutocracy, I think you should be able to explain that.

            1. AnCom|6.8.15 @ 9:40PM|#
              “Considering it’s the basis for your justification of corporate plutocracy, I think you should be able to explain that.”

              Here’s the deal, AnCom: I’m a snob. I refuse to waste time explaining the obvious to ignoramuses. Sorry, it’s just the way it is.
              I will give you a riddle in return. Please explain how you trade and thereby increase human wealth if someone doesn’t own those things.

              1. The State gets to own things, Sevo. Only the State. DUH!

              2. Straw man arguments. I never said no ownership. I have a nuanced understanding of property. I distinguish between productive property in land, which originally belongs to no one, and final products of labor, the fruits from that land. I am against ownership of productive land one is not actually using or occupying. For example, I am against owning a piece of farmland one is not actually farming or residing on. By “owning” it, you deny the liberty of someone else to farm that land. Such absentee ownership has its roots in feudalism and extended into capitalism, the core feature of which is the absentee ownership of productive property. Of course people should keep the fruits of their labor and trade them, etc.

                1. Who is to define what constitutes use? Who is to define the threshold of frequency of use? If a well-meaning and peaceable person visits his or her land one time too little to constitute use or occupation, are you comfortable with using the threat of deadly force to take that land from a person who hasn’t aggressed against anyone else?

                  1. How is the land “his or hers” to begin with? How do you justify original appropriation?

                    1. How is the land “his or hers” to begin with? How do you justify original appropriation?

                      Take 10 minutes and find out. I won’t respond to you until approximately 10:16 EST, after which I assume you will have watched the video and paid attention to its line of argumentation in good faith..

                    2. That video actually makes the argument I support, that one owns the fruits of his labor and what one occupies. However, I don’t think you can homestead land, leave it, and then still have ownership of the land, except for the fruits of labor that came from that land, like a house. You don’t have ownership of the soil anymore.

                      Also, the whole homesteading thing never really happened to a significant degree in the history of capitalism.

                    3. AnCom|6.8.15 @ 10:24PM|#
                      “[…]However, I don’t think you can homestead land, leave it, and then still have ownership of the land, except for the fruits of labor that came from that land, like a house[…]”

                      Which is the sort of imbecilic comment I would expect from an ignoramus.

                    4. go shove a pikestaff up your ass.

                    5. AnCom|6.8.15 @ 10:34PM|#
                      “go shove a pikestaff up your ass”

                      See? See?
                      That’s the reason dealing with dim-bulbs gets you nowhere.
                      They’re too stupid to learn, so you get stuff like this.
                      Oh, and fuck you with rusty farm implements, or creosote-soaked rail-road ties.

                    6. However, I don’t think you can homestead land, leave it, and then still have ownership of the land, except for the fruits of labor that came from that land, like a house. You don’t have ownership of the soil anymore.

                      Again, I ask, who determines what constitutes use? Who determines the period of time one can be away from the land before it reverts to the commons? What do you do with the person who refuses to leave?

                      Also, the whole homesteading thing never really happened to a significant degree in the history of capitalism.

                      Completely false.

                    7. These are good questions. It should be left up to the community which resides on the lands in question. I would hope the community would take a commonsense approach to the situation. I doubt a democratic and independent community would support the kind of property relations we see today as sanctioned by the modern state.

                    8. I’m sorry…you think you have a vote on what I do with the property I own?

                      Go fuck yourself with the rustiest chainsaw.

                    9. If it’s legitimately yours (occupy or use) then others shouldn’t have a say. That would be a tyranny of the majority. If the property requires the input of others, then there should be democratic control over it, such as abandoned property, large-scale farms, factories, or other means of production.

                      You propertarians are so touchy when it comes to property.

                    10. It should be left up to the community which resides on the lands in question

                      As long as it’s an understanding based on a voluntary agreement, then we have no quarrel.

                2. For example, I am against owning a piece of farmland one is not actually farming or residing on. By “owning” it, you deny the liberty of someone else to farm that land.

                  Your hatred of national parks must be immeasurable.

                  1. “For example, I am against owning a piece of farmland one is not actually farming or residing on. By “owning” it, you deny the liberty of someone else to farm that land.”

                    Except that by owning a piece of farmland you can sell that farmland to the highest bidder. By selling that farmland to the highest bidder, you insure that people who can actually turn a profit through farming will buy that land, and the people who can turn a profit tend to be those that produce more food.

                    As such, your plan would actually result in mass deprivation since farm land would not be allocated by willingness to pay, but would instead be allocated to whoever happened to stumble onto that land and build a cottage. Your plan sounds awfully similar to what Mugabe did in Zimbabwe that led to the massive collapse in food production and gargantuan inflation we all know and love from that great country.

                    So your plan is moronic.

                3. I distinguish between productive property in land, which originally belongs to no one, and final products of labor, the fruits from that land. I am against ownership of productive land one is not actually using or occupying.

                  So what about people who leave land unworked for environmental preservation or simply for natural beauty? Or is that ok because you, AnCom, are the ultimate arbitrator of what people should or should not do with their property?

                  1. If the community which resides on that land democratically decides to do that, then that’s their collective liberty.

                    1. AnCom|6.8.15 @ 10:09PM|#
                      “If the community which resides on that land democratically decides to do that, then that’s their collective liberty.”

                      This needs to be visible for all to see as an example of the product of government schooling.
                      If you didn’t go to government schooling, to keep from embarrassing the institution you did attend, claim it’s government schooling.

                4. AnCom|6.8.15 @ 9:53PM|#
                  “Straw man arguments. I never said no ownership.”

                  Like I said: Fuck off slaver. Or words to that effect.

              3. Actually you’re a simpleton who pouts and makes lame excuses whenever confronted with a basic question about your philosophy you can’t answer.

                Why is it that almost anything is up for grabs among libertarians except for one thing: you cannot under any circumstances criticize the status quo distribution of wealth and corporate power?

                1. You forgot to switch handles, old bean.

                  1. AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA. At least there’s some silver lining today.

                2. Lefty ignoramus shows up to prove he’s a lefty ignoramus one more time:

                  Tony|6.8.15 @ 9:55PM|#
                  “Actually you’re a simpleton who pouts and makes lame excuses whenever confronted with a basic question about your philosophy you can’t answer.
                  Why is it that almost anything is up for grabs among libertarians except for one thing: you cannot under any circumstances criticize the status quo distribution of wealth and corporate power?”

                  OK, you guys, why is it that we just spend all day cheering about the status quo? I really can’t answer that.

                  1. Oh no, you want to radically alter the status quo–in every way imaginable to advance the wealth and interests of the superrich. Literally not a single economic policy belief you have isn’t in service of that end.

                    1. “Oh no, you want to radically alter the status quo–in every way imaginable to advance the wealth and interests of the superrich. Literally not a single economic policy belief you have isn’t in service of that end.”

                      Great point. That explains why leftist countries like Cuba are always so much wealthier and more successful than dirty Capitalist countries like America, Australia, or Switzerland – because Cuba is not beholden the the super rich.

                    2. Because Cuba and laissez-faire capitalism are our only choices.

                    3. I’m sorry. Come again? Did you just make the astounding claim that Cuba is…capitalist?

                    4. Cuba is an autocratic bizarro state not helped by the decades of economic oppression from its nearest powerful neighbor. If you are saying that’s the kind of society I want, you’re either incredibly stupid or building a desperate straw man; either way it reflects badly on your own argument.

                    5. “Cuba is an autocratic bizarro state not helped by the decades of economic oppression from its nearest powerful neighbor. If you are saying that’s the kind of society I want, you’re either incredibly stupid or building a desperate straw man; either way it reflects badly on your own argument.”

                      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

                      Tony, you really know nothing about anything, do you? The US could have been trading freely with Cuba for the last 70 years and it would have made no difference. The US has traded freely with other authoritarian and often socialist states, yet for some reason all those socialist countries suck too. The U.S., for example, has no embargo on Venezuela, yet Venezuela ended up right where Cuba is. That kind of implies the problem is primarily one of economic and capital controls and not one of vulgar gringo oppression, doesn’t it? Unless you’re such a dumbass you seriously by Castro and Maduro’s propaganda blaming the US for their own failures, in which case, congratulations! You’re as gullible and easily manipulated as a dirt poor Venezuelan peasant despite having gone through America’s educational system!

                      Way to waste the opportunity to get educated, Tony.

                    6. I said they were not helped, not that ending decades of ridiculous sanctions is sufficient to turn them into a first-world country. The models we liberals look to can be found in places like Scandinavia, Europe, Canada, and all the rest of the highly developed mixed economies that do things better than us because they are more willing to employ government to fix the problems of capitalism.

                    7. Tony|6.8.15 @ 11:29PM|#
                      “I said they were not helped, not that ending decades of ridiculous sanctions is sufficient to turn them into a first-world country.”
                      So you ignored what causes the problem and tried a bit of innuendo? Surprise!

                      “The models we liberals look to can be found in places like Scandinavia, Europe, Canada, and all the rest of the highly developed mixed economies that do things better than us because they are more willing to employ government to fix the problems of capitalism.”
                      So you propose a scattershot of countries and a continent mixed with a false claim in the hopes of finding some support for your stupidity?
                      Surprise!

                    8. Why wasn’t Cuba helped by the embargo? According to leftist economic theory, it should have, because capitalism is exploitation, and socialism is supposed to work better!

                      So what Tony is saying is: Cuba’s socialism was crippled because we didn’t do capitalism with them.

                    9. Tony|6.8.15 @ 10:42PM|#
                      “Cuba is an autocratic bizarro state not helped by the decades of economic oppression from its nearest powerful neighbor. If you are saying that’s the kind of society I want, you’re either incredibly stupid or building a desperate straw man; either way it reflects badly on your own argument.”

                      Irish wasted his time taking this apart, but I wonder whether you’re really this stupid, or are you drunk early this evening?

                    10. “Because Cuba and laissez-faire capitalism are our only choices.

                      The Khmer Rouge worked wonders with their land.. The essence of a significant portion of their populace, including their once loathed laissez-faire capitalists probably still nurture staple crops through the soil to this day, in what was once Kampuchea’s vast and numerous human gardens… Redistribution indeed..

                    11. Because Cuba and laissez-faire capitalism are our only choices.

                      Nah, there’s also NorKo’s Juche, Mao’s great leap forward, Stalins 5 year plans, whatever the fuck Pol Pot called his abomination and numerous others paths.

                      Funny how they all require extreme levels of government violence to implement.

                    12. Tony|6.8.15 @ 10:07PM|#
                      “Oh no, you want to radically alter the status quo–in every way imaginable to advance the wealth and interests of the superrich. Literally not a single economic policy belief you have isn’t in service of that end.”

                      Whatever you’re drinking, I don’t want it. It causes abysmal stupidity.

                    13. Tony|6.8.15 @ 10:07PM|#
                      “Oh no, you want to radically alter the status quo–in every way imaginable to advance the wealth and interests of the superrich.”

                      So first, we’re supporting the status quo, and now 12 minutes later, we’re revolutionaries trying to tear it down?
                      Who was it that’s the simpleton?

                3. You’re the biggest moron in the history of the human species, Tony.

                  “Why is it that almost anything is up for grabs among libertarians except for one thing: you cannot under any circumstances criticize the status quo distribution of wealth and corporate power?”

                  Arguing in favor of the elimination of land deeds, which is what AnCom is arguing, is not about ‘criticizing the status quo distribution of wealth,’ it’s about eliminating basic property rights and destroying the ability for the market place to allocate land efficiently. It’s a wonderful way to utterly destroy food production, but not a particularly good way to change the distribution of wealth, unless you consider that the distribution of wealth will naturally shift when half the population has starved to death.

                  1. The point I was addressing was the one about how you make an exception, a very big one, to your articulated first principles when it comes to using taxpayer-funded government goons to protect “property,” by which you mean wealth. I find some utility in our property rights and so don’t agree with AnCom, but I’m not the one who says government qua force is inherently evil.

                    1. Tony|6.8.15 @ 10:18PM|#
                      “The point I was addressing was the one about how you make an exception, a very big one, to your articulated first principles when it comes to using taxpayer-funded government goons to protect “property,” by which you mean wealth.”

                      So ‘the point you were making’ is the result of your inability to understand?
                      Hmmm. Why is that not surprising?

                    2. So let me get this straight Sevo. Your refusal ever to say anything of substance is because you’re such a snob that you feel it is beneath you? That’s why you’re here, to get that across to people?

                    3. Tony|6.8.15 @ 10:28PM|#
                      “So let me get this straight Sevo. Your refusal ever to say anything of substance is because you’re such a snob that you feel it is beneath you?”

                      No, you stupid pile of shit, I do nothing of the sort. Your narcissism shows in that you only visit the threads you’ve corrupted.
                      However, when dealing with fucking ignoramuses such as you, I don’t bother with more than insults and riddles, since it is NOT MY JOB to EDUCATE YOU.
                      Oh, and fuck off.

                    4. a very big one, to your articulated first principles when it comes to using taxpayer-funded government goons to protect “property,” by which you mean wealth.

                      You’re right. That’s why many of us advocate the return to private law enforcement that was the norm in this country until the mid 1850’s or so.

                    5. Private law enforcement. What could possibly go wrong? Leaving aside that “law enforcement” literally means government force whether the guy holding the gun has a badge or not, are you trying to confirm my point for me, the one about how your beliefs all service a sheltered, government-protected, unchecked economic elite? How is it even possible that when you see the words “private law enforcement” you don’t immediately start wondering what that means for people who can’t afford to pay security guards?

                    6. Leaving aside that “law enforcement” literally means government force whether the guy holding the gun has a badge or not

                      No, it doesn’t. If you continue to idiosyncratically define words, there is no point in continuing this debate.

                      the one about how your beliefs all service a sheltered, government-protected, unchecked economic elite?

                      How can I advocate for a government-protected elite when I don’t believe there should be a government at all?

                      How is it even possible that when you see the words “private law enforcement” you don’t immediately start wondering what that means for people who can’t afford to pay security guards?

                      It means that people have the ability to defend themselves. You never heard of a volunteer fire department?

                    7. (Many) libertarians see property as antecedent to, and ontologically separate from, government. Property comes first, then government is instituted to protect the property. You can have property without government.

                      I understand that you think differently, and yes I know about Murphy-Nagel’s work, but what it boils down to are moral axioms. We won’t be changing your moral axioms; you won’t be changing ours. The arguments are just spinning wheels.

                      The more interesting question is, “Given that libertarians and Tonyistas have a widely differing conception of property, how can we peacefully co-exist?” And the answer to that question is to have separate states. And that’s one of the reasons I would like to see the United States (and all large states, for that matter) broken up into many different sovereigns, so that there’s the greatest variety of states for people to choose from (from full-frontal libertarian to People’s Republik of Tonylandia).

                    8. “Given that libertarians and Tonyistas have a widely differing conception of property, how can we peacefully co-exist?”

                      But the Tonyistas aren’t interest in peaceful co-existence. They believe all they survey is theirs to redistribute according to their plans by birthright; the situation is as intractable as Israel and Palestine. The fact that someone would choose to live outside their enlightened technocracy induces paroxysms of rage that would manifest themselves in violent campaigns of conquest and eventual genocide. Remember, there was a time when Robespierre was just a seemingly reasonable guy talking shit about politics in a Parisian coffeehouse.

                    9. Don’t get me wrong. I know what they dream about. But it’s perfectly possible to have socialist shitholes that keep within their borders. Cuba hasn’t tried to invade any other Caribbean nations over the last five decades (at least not that I know of).

                    10. The Heresiarch|6.8.15 @ 11:18PM|#
                      “Don’t get me wrong. I know what they dream about. But it’s perfectly possible to have socialist shitholes that keep within their borders.”

                      Yes it is, and if they are small enough the collapse isn’t a major issue.
                      But the fact is we (as if “we” represented a truly freed market) are still dealing with and paying for the soviet 50-year corruption of any market economy in Eastern Europe.
                      Not to mention trying to clean up the disasters FDR left in our laps in the US.
                      So, no, even when they stay within their borders, they are evil, miserable, slimy assholes who will end up costing all of us for the rest of our lives.
                      I don’t know what the answer is, but those of us with some degree of sense end up shoveling out the remains of what the Tonys of the world continue to promote.
                      Maybe the slimy twits should post a damn bond.

                    11. Well, there was Grenada. Also, they managed (with Soviet help) to invade Mozambique.

                    12. “.. there was a time when Robespierre was just a seemingly reasonable guy talking shit about politics in a Parisian coffeehouse.”

                      He didn’t want cake, HM.. none of them did.

                    13. They believe all they survey is theirs to redistribute according to their plans by birthright

                      And the 7% of Americans who identify as libertarian? Not huge fans of democratic choice as my experience suggests, for apparent reasons. How would you effect your inarguably radical changes to society? Selecting the status quo distribution is not morally distinct from selecting another. Actively promoting increased concentration is what you do, though, and I do not think anyone is entitled to ignore the obvious actual consequences of his policy choices.

                      Liberals may argue vigorously for their policies, but that’s not the same thing as favoring autocratic imposition of them. We are the last ones to do that, and with respect to democracy are the ones working the hardest to realize it as much as possible in this country.

                      Or it could be that your clinically paranoid rhetoric is the truth, in which case good luck with that 7%.

                    14. Tony|6.8.15 @ 11:44PM|#
                      “[..]And the 7% of Americans who identify as libertarian? Not huge fans of democratic choice as my experience suggests, for apparent reasons.[…]”

                      And Tony’s back to prove once again that he’s a fucking ignoramus!
                      Gee, Tony, ever hear of the ‘Dictatorship of the Proletariat’?
                      Can you say “I’m an ignoramus”? I’m sure you can!

                    15. You never argue in good faith, do you? All I’m going to say is this…

                      How would you effect your inarguably radical changes to society?

                      Peacefully.

                      Liberals may argue vigorously for their policies, but that’s not the same thing as favoring autocratic imposition of them.

                      You are no liberal. You are kith and kin to Pol Pot. Your entire history has proven this. You have no qualms about the use of force to impose your political will. Do you think we’ve forgotten your previous postings?

                      Or it could be that your clinically paranoid rhetoric is the truth, in which case good luck with that 7%.

                      Insurgencies were won with less. Be careful of what you wish for.

                      I’m done with you know. Go back into your box.

                    16. *now

                      Yep, it’s sleep time. Good night all.

                      My thoughts are with those who need some positivity in these times.

                    17. “People’s Republik of Tonylandia”

                      It’s spelled V-E-N-E-Z…
                      You get the point

                    18. I agree partway about first principles, but I am also directly arguing that libertarians who favor property are absurdly contradictory of their own: you are against government compulsion, except for those forms that involve the most direct, physical force of all government functions (keeping trespassers in their place). It amounts to “Government is only legitimately entitled to do what I personally want it to do.” My main argument isn’t against any policies, it’s against the claim that your policies are required by an unimpeachable first principle. Only anarchists actually adhere to that principle; propertarians are just making excuses.

                      We have 50 states with wide latitude to experiment; I’m not the first to observe this. Par example, Kansas is currently engaging in a libertarian/conservative experiment that is thoroughly ruining that state faster than even I would have predicted.

                    19. Tony|6.8.15 @ 11:38PM|#
                      “I agree partway about first principles, but I am also directly arguing that libertarians who favor property are absurdly contradictory of their own: you are against government compulsion, except for those forms that involve the most direct, physical force of all government functions (keeping trespassers in their place).”

                      You are a stupid shit not worthy of wasting one more post of explanation.
                      The point has been explained to you many, many, many times; your stupidity prevents you from accepting the answer.
                      So, fuck off, slaver.

                    20. Sevo called me stupid again and made no other point, I’m so humbled.

                    21. Tony|6.9.15 @ 12:08AM|#
                      “Sevo called me stupid again and made no other point, I’m so humbled.”

                      Reading is SO hard, right?
                      You have much to be humble about.

                    22. “you are against government compulsion, except for those forms that involve the most direct, physical force of all government functions (keeping trespassers in their place).”

                      You seem to be playing semantics with the word “force” there, Tony.

                      If the government uses force to keep a vagrant off my house, that “force” is justified. Law enforcement is a legitimate function of the government. You would use a certain amount of “force” to take out a fire that started in your kitchen. Or fend off the drunkard off your wife.

                      If the government prevents me from sending my kids to school because it’s not in my district, then that kind of force deprives me of choice. And takes away my freedom. Do you see the distinction?

                      You’re being intentionally obtuse here, Tony. You always were. Many conservatives who disagree with libertarians can at least present the libertarian position in an honest way in order to address it. You don’t. “Durrrr libertarians are hypocrites because they use the road and the government built it”.

                    23. Employing government goons to expel trespassers limits their choice as well.

                      All I’m saying is if you’re going to insist that government force is inherently bad, then you can’t be for property rights. If you are OK with employing it in certain instances, then you are left with the option of defending your choices on their merits, not telling liberals, who want to use government for some other purposes, that they can’t because of some limiting principle placed on force. You can’t be against force but for only those forms of force that are literal, like shooting and imprisoning people. Saying “because that’s a legitimate function” is, obviously, to beg the question.

                    24. Tony|6.8.15 @ 10:35PM|#
                      “Private law enforcement. What could possibly go wrong?”

                      Government law enforcement. What could possibly go wrong?
                      I’ll wait.

                    25. It’s not an exception. It maximizes liberty, as was fully explained to you the other night.

                  2. “Arguing in favor of the elimination of land deeds, which is what AnCom is arguing, is not about ‘criticizing the status quo distribution of wealth,’ it’s about eliminating basic property rights”

                    But he MEANS well!

            2. Are you actually interested in debate, or do you just want to shadowbox against mischaracterizations of your own design?

              1. Oh, shit. He went and roused HM….

                /shakes head for ol’ AnCom

        2. Ah, I see that you’re such a fan of Chomsky that, like him, you constructed your own “colorless green ideas sleep furiously” sentences, which are both grammatically correct and devoid of semantic meaning.

          1. Or at least none you are able to discern.

            1. Nope. It’s empirical fact that you just vomited up a bunch of moonspeak gibberish in an attempt to obfuscate the mendacious nature of your argument.

            2. You simply don’t get to design society to your liking. No matter how brilliant you think you are you cannot decide for every person the proper way to trade their labor and goods. Leaving them alone to trade is capitalism. All other methods are authoritarianism with a plan.

              1. “[…]No matter how brilliant you think you are you cannot decide for every person the proper way to trade their labor and goods.[…]”

                This can not be said often or loud enough.
                You want to make the choices? You *will* end up wiping your ass with the currency you debased since no one will bother making toilet tissue for such ignoramuses.
                The toilet paper makers are ‘way smarter than you are!

          2. Doesn’t really stink like Tulpa, but it could easily be one of the other common trolls.

            1. It’s American Sociopath, who may or may not be a Tulpa head.

          3. +1 Martian linguist & unlearning kitten

            I wonder if our Chomsky fan knows that he was paid millions by the Pentagon.

            Strange that a critic of the US gov would take their blood money.

            1. Strange that a critic of the US gov would take their blood money.

              Like Ayn Rand and her SS checks, I’m not going to fault Chomsky too much for that. I can respect the game of take their money and use it against them.

    2. You want to take the part of our society that mostly works, and make it more like the part that wobbles between corrupt, brutal, and inept?

    3. Hahahahahaha

  31. Does this mean we can’t talk about Lucy?

    1. I’m just afraid that I will never again get to read another Agile Cyborg entry.

      1. I don’t think many have a functioning Cyborg-to-English translation device.

    2. Just don’t say you want her to burn in hell.

      1. You know who burned people in ovens?

        1. Hansel and Gretel?

  32. Crap this blows. Big time.

    Here for you Agamemnon, btw. Let us know how to help.

    Looks like I’m writing reason another check this year, too.

  33. You’re all a bunch of fucking web trolls

    1. “Trollish comments”

      They obviously haven’t seen a Bo/Buttplug/Tony/Tulpa thread here.

      On a serious note.. this is some scary shit.

      1. Did you see the fake Playa Manhattan over there?

    2. I am not a web troll. I do all my trolling in real life.

    3. Yay, more craziness from Mary. And using Playa’s name, too!

    4. They see me trollin’
      They hatin’

  34. It’s been suggested Pope Hat’s insult wasn’t an insult but a term of endearment.

    If so, I take back my criticism but is this fact?

    1. Rufus J. Firefly|6.8.15 @ 9:37PM|#
      “It’s been suggested Pope Hat’s insult wasn’t an insult but a term of endearment.
      If so, I take back my criticism but is this fact?”

      To be honest, I’m as much concerned with his opinion of me as I am with Tony’s.

      1. Touche.

    2. I hang out at Popehat. I would say it’s one of those “worthy adversary” type of endearments. You punch it out in a courtroom then go grab a beer together.

      1. I don’t get a beer with them; I don’t even bother to mention what I think of them.
        They’re not worth my time.

        1. They’re trying to help. They help lots of people. They do a good job with their helpingness. They can help the aforementioned Reason commenters, and if Ken weren’t interested or didn’t care or want to help, he wouldn’t have posted it at all.

          When one is not familiar with the tone of a new place, it’s easy to misunderstand the asides, in-jokes, and deadpan humor. Rufus asked what seems to be an honest question. “It’s been suggested Pope Hat’s insult wasn’t an insult but a term of endearment. … is this fact?”

          IMO, yes. My comment was from observing Popehat over a several-year period, reading every post, almost every comment, rarely commenting myself. Clark posts here. (In fact, he posted in that thread.)

          I’m new to posting here, but I’ve been reading here a long time. I generally know when someone here is being sarcastic, who’s a troll, some of the in-jokes. But you don’t know me yet, which is the way these things go.

          This is an entirely different vibe from Popehat, an entirely different commentariat. Reason’s like the old Usenet wild west, which I miss. Popehat’s more like a bunch of guys sitting around shooting the breeze.

          These are my observations, for whatever it’s worth to you, coming from a new commenter.

          But they ARE trying to help.

        2. I don’t even bother to mention what I think of them.
          They’re not worth my time.

          It’s best that we don’t mention what we think of anyone.

  35. OK, Smilin’ Joe posts on Pope Hat that wired now has a thread on that which cannot be named, but there are multiple wired blogs; any idea which one?

      1. Thx.
        BTW, someone linked an NYT article on Musk, and questioned why Reason and the commenters were always in Musk’s pocket.
        I tried to find a link to one of the ‘beat on Tesla’ threads but couldn’t.

        1. I assume you saw the LA Times piece on the $4.9BB in subsidies he’s suckled from the government…

          1. Damn! It was the LAT, not the NYT, so yes.
            Did you notice the ‘no comments’? Shrillery ain’t the only one to find a fox hole handy.

            1. No comments on the LAT article? I didn’t actually read it. The Register referenced it in their write up.

              Here’s the link you wanted:

              https://reason.com/blog/2014/09…..ot#comment

              Musk is a Grade A parasite with one company that appears to work. Amazing how chickenshit he is to open that one up to private equity aside from special deals with his Google pals. Meanwhile TSLA continues to have a ridiculous valuation with ever lower net margins and cash flows.

              1. NotAnotherSkippy|6.8.15 @ 10:34PM|#
                “No comments on the LAT article?”

                No, *his* ‘no comments’; that fox hole is at least as deep as Shillery’s.

        2. Someone on discus has a deep love for Playa evidently.

          1. Playa’s done a JOB on turd several times, hitting that POS where it hurts. So if I were guessing…

        3. Reason is maybe in his pockets, but the not the commenters.

      2. That’s it. And a fake Playa Manhattan has showed up in the comments there. Wow.

        1. This whole thing is both very depressing and very scary.

          1. Which is, of course, the point. As much as I’d like to pin this on a pantywaisted public servant and her coterie of venal clingers-on at the DAs, I think they’re well aware how insubstantial the quote-unquote threats really are. But it’s not a matter of protecting anyone. It’s about punishing uppity peons. And because the process is the punishment, it hardly matters whether the charges stick or if it’s slapped down before it’s taken to trial. Chilling speech is the point. Vindictive, censorious asshats, to quote a beloved blogger.

            1. This is exactly right.

              I simply cannot believe that ANYONE at the DOJ ACTUALLY believes that those comments were ACTUAL threats.

              This reeks of dick swinging knowing full well that the process is the punishment.

              1. It really is terrifying.

                1. I for one, welcome our new benevolent overlords.

  36. That judge fucking sucks. She’s a heartless piece of shit.
    Fuck the Department of Jackasses too!
    Big government is a parasite.
    I can’t believe that they’re actually wasting money…our money on this shit.
    Oh wait, yes I can believe it.
    That’s what they do best.
    Latch on like shitwhore leeches and suck ass.

  37. Perhaps we should wait a bit to see the logistics of this and how Reason will handle it, but if there’s a Gofundme page or some place set up where we can contribute financially to those targeted (and Reason too) I’d very much like to help.

    1. Wouldn’t GoFundMe just cancel it, since it’s run by leftwingers who shut down anything not leftist?

      1. I think even a left-winger would understand the importance of protecting speech with which they don’t necessarily agree. Right?

        1. Thank you. Will you be here all week?

          1. Hell, I have to wonder if the comments get nuked because we pretty flippantly disavowed their request to can it, so maybe not.

            1. BRB, someone’s knocking on my door. The good thing about living in Japan is the men in black types tend to stand out.

      2. Agammamon is setting up a GoFundMe. I’m donating the instant it goes live.

        As I told him in the Popehat thread, I think he should avoid commenting on the unpleasantness publicly as much as possible. Get the GoFundMe up, link to it somewhere if Reason will let him, if not circulate an email and we’ll make sure everyone finds out about it.

        This is so frivolous I think he’ll beat it easily, but the cost and time could be prohibitive…which, it seems to me, is probably the point.

        1. Viscount Irish, Slayer of Huns|6.9.15 @ 12:10AM|#
          “Agammamon is setting up a GoFundMe.”

          That’s a start, but a web site to help all the victims would be helpful.
          Sorry, Nick.

          1. I’m not sure that they were all victims. The regulars, sure. But there’s something a little too convenient about some throw away handles being involved.

            1. Could be Tor types from that ominous “darknet” that wired thinks is worthy of judicial FYTW.

            2. Playa,
              Missed this until now.
              You are of more devious mind than am I, and you may well be correct.

        2. Irish, I’m in.

          1. Ditto

        3. I am breaking my promise to never comment here again but I too will donate to a GoFundMe. If Reason refuses to allow a link to be posted I will give up a throw away email so someone can give me the link when it goes live.

    2. I agree. Reason was slow to post this afternoon and I suspect it was because the staff were probably in a conference call discussing strategy on this subpoena crap. I’m hoping that when the smoke clears, reason will have an airing out, so to speak. This is a free-speech issue, and I suspect the DOJ is definitely on a vendetta here. Especially when you consider the vastness of the Internet and the ridiculous and horrid things that are spoken by commenters every pico second.

      1. I am a bit disappointed here, but I’m also not the target of the vindictive bitch known as the federal government. So I’m going to cautiously withhold judgment.

        1. Seeing as how the federal government can destroy just about anyone’s life with miniscule effort on their part, I’ve come to realize that I love the government. That and roads, we need roads. Let the record show.

  38. I love Tony.

    Why can’t you extremists accept any criticism of the status quo and its corporate culture, such as abolishing the cornerstone of capitalist property rights?

    I think I’ll go to dailykos and ask why they can’t accept any criticism of government, like denying the authority of the state to make any non-unanimous collective decisions at all.

    1. Look, if you oppose Zimbabwean style elimination of land titles, it’s just because you love the super rich.

  39. I’m thinking the ZeroHedge commentariat may be watching how ole Reason handles this. They don’t play as nice as we do.

    1. Personally, I’d love to see one of these smash-and-grab subpoena efforts ended like the seizure of Tombstone in Cryptonomicon. Not of course that I’m suggesting anyone hack into their own server and reformat it remotely, nor that anyone should detonate an EMP nearby in an act of civil disobedience. Just that I’d find it pretty amusing if it happened.

      1. I wouldn’t not disagree with that if you hadn’t said that at all.

        /double secret reverse sarc

  40. blowhard stupidity of its commenting peanut gallery…. these obnoxious asshats…. these twerps mouthed off ……

    You say that like those are bad things.

  41. Well, let this be a lesson to us all. To avoid the wrath of the government, stick to innocuous online comments like “#killallwhitepeople.” We know the DoJ is OK with that sort of thing.

  42. I’m going to respect Reason’s wishes and not discuss what’s going on, but I hope no one gets hurt. It seems Reason’s steadfast support for 2A and crusade against the surveillance state has earned them a “right wing extremist” label.

    Reason needs to use disqus for comment section. We can down vote posts or the mod can delete some of them.

  43. Any municipal worker in NYC knows that to boost OT in the last years of work makes their pension a lucrative proposition and sticks it to the taxpayer – the true employer who has no control. In private industry? Keep people safe and get out of the way.

  44. So what’s your problem? Amazing how so many on the right complain about this, but that’s because they wouldn’t know anything about business…even if it bit them on the butt. OT is only a reflection of demand. If demand is up, more hours are required. And any businessman will tell you it’s cheaper to meet that demand through OT rather than the added costs of a new hire with benefits.

    1. Jackand Ace|6.9.15 @ 9:11AM|#
      “So what’s your problem? Amazing how so many on the right complain about this, but that’s because they wouldn’t know anything about business…even if it bit them on the butt. OT is only a reflection of demand. If demand is up, more hours are required. And any businessman will tell you it’s cheaper to meet that demand through OT rather than the added costs of a new hire with benefits.”

      Well, I see the problem right here:
      Anyone with a brain knows that mandating a certain pay is a good way to screw things up, so, naturally, that hasn’t occurred to one of our resident imbeciles.
      Jack, what you know about business isn’t worth spit.

  45. Let us let the free market do it’s thing. Like allowing corporations to hide earnings in oversea accounts to avoid taxation. Like “bailing out” the banks so the rich get richer instead of jailing them for fraud. Like allowing corporations to be people to rig the systems in favor of the rich. Koch Industries the libertarian fan favorite rigs for the cants, pollutes waterways, pays off felony convictions, plays by its own rules.

    1. you are just repeating talking points fed to you by Carlos Slim Industries

    2. Literally every single thing you mentioned has nothing to do with the free market and has been actively helped by your friendly neighborhood Democrat.

      1. Correct, I was being facetious. How can you blame all of those points on a Democrat?
        Bailing out banks was the ex-Goldman appointed Hank Paulson who mumbled and stumbled and convinced DubYa that 789 billion to the banks (his Jewish friends) was the right thing to do. And “Citizen United” was done under DubYa. The Koch brothers are just Libertarian assholes intent on taking over the world. So, if there is a Democratic president he is responsible for everything that occurs on his watch, regardless of who is sitting in the House of the Senate? And if a Republican president and the Hourse and Senate are Democratic, it is their fault.

        1. IzItSo|6.9.15 @ 2:57PM|#
          “[…]The Koch brothers are just Libertarian assholes intent on taking over the world.[…]”

          OK, stupid alert!
          Fuck off, slaver.

          1. Can you elaborate – do you think the Koch brothers are good? They are desperately trying to buy a Republican candidate worthy to be President to protect their inherited oil and gas interests which are in danger as long as a Democrat is President.

        2. Oh, I’m sorry. I didn’t realize that I needed to express my displeasure with the Republicans as well.

          For the record, people might not assume you’re a piece of shit dem troll if you don’t spout stupid Koch bashing ridiculousness.

  46. Congress passes laws to repeal the laws of economics!
    And in other news, a group of pigs were seen flying over Washington, D.C.

  47. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.netcash5.com

  48. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    http://www.worktoday7.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.